Question About Evolution

[kaoticprofit]

Who says there must be a "who?" And if there is a who, who or what created this who? God does not get a free pass on the "original/first cause" just because this character is allegedly god. Where did god come from? What started god?
A cow produces a cow because a cow can only produce a cow. But, where does the cow's ancestor begin and their predecessor begin? When it comes to evolution and specialization, it's more like a rainbow where we can see red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, and indigo, but it's very difficult to tell exactly where one begins and another ends because the colors blend together, creating a range of tertiary colors when closely examined.
And, a burrito obviously isn't living, and is a human food invention. They are inanimate, non living, and it's absurd to even ask why a human has to make them.

How did my burrito end up with chicken instead of beef when I ordered beef? I know. It was an uncontrolled big bang in the kitchen that went wrong. So what am I saying? You've said it yourself. A cow produces a cow because a cow can only produce a cow. That puts this mutation business to rest. Things that mutate don't improve. They typically degenerate. So mutation isn't a genuine form of creative progression.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Nature -- by the mechanisms you should have learned about in High School science classes.

I learned it in college too. Who created nature!

 

[Kirran]

Things that mutate don't improve. They typically degenerate. So mutation isn't a genuine form of creative progression.

You seem awfully sure of this. Do you have any evidence to back it up, or anything to undermine all the evidence to the contrary we've discovered?

Yes, deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial ones by a large margin, and both are outnumbered by neutral ones. But the deleterious ones aren't maintained in the gene pool, but actively selected out of it, while the inverse is true for beneficial mutations.

 

[Ouroboros]

And as the environment changes, the traits--whether mutations or not--become more or less able to contribute to reproduction into future generations.

Yup.

And it becomes more complex considering that other species (genes or traits) become part of the environment for both the own species and others. It's a self-influencing system. A spiral. The effect becomes a part of the influence.

 

[Ouroboros]

I learned it in college too. Who created nature!

Who created the creator who created nature?

At some point, we just have to agree that there's a creative force that's eternal, but not a "who" but just a "what".

A "who" is someone who thinks about what to do next with what he/she/it has at hand. A "what" is a simpler construct which is the things that can become something else.

It's actually much easier to think of nature as a larger thing that has existed in many forms from eternal past, than to think of a being that has existed from eternal past without a form at all.

 

[kaoticprofit]

You seem awfully sure of this. Do you have any evidence to back it up, or anything to undermine all the evidence to the contrary we've discovered?

Yes, deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial ones by a large margin, and both are outnumbered by neutral ones. But the deleterious ones aren't maintained in the gene pool, but actively selected out of it, while the inverse is true for beneficial mutations.

You people are the ones that need to prove the idea that mutations progressed into lions, tigers, and bears. I know my burrito didn't mutate from wheat fields and cows, and neither did anything that was created. Maybe sasquatch is your answer.

So tell me all about these 'beneficial mutations.'

 

[kaoticprofit]

Who created the creator who created nature?

At some point, we just have to agree that there's a creative force that's eternal, but not a "who" but just a "what".

A "who" is someone who thinks about what to do next with what he/she/it has at hand. A "what" is a simpler construct which is the things that can become something else.

It's actually much easier to think of nature as a larger thing that has existed in many forms from eternal past, than to think of a being that has existed from eternal past without a form at all.

It's an unreasonable question to ask who created the creator. Who says he was created in the first place! We as humans are limited in our understanding of the whole picture. Humans have this uncanny ability to to fabricate whatever it is they want into things that are unknown. Since there is no answer as to who created the creator other than the biblical view that He always existed.

 

[Kirran]

You people are the ones that need to prove the idea that mutations progressed into lions, tigers, and bears. I know my burrito didn't mutate from wheat fields and cows, and neither did anything that was created. Maybe sasquatch is your answer.

So tell me all about these 'beneficial mutations.'

We've observed beneficial mutations occur in organismal populations. What do you want to know exactly?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's an unreasonable question to ask who created the creator. Who says he was created in the first place!

It's the same question as to ask if nature was created in the first place! The question "who created nature" is based on assumption that nature has to be created. There's no evidence that it needs to.

We as humans are limited in our understanding of the whole picture. Humans have this uncanny ability to to fabricate whatever it is they want into things that are unknown. Since there is no answer as to who created the creator other than the biblical view that He always existed.

The Bible is the works of humans. It's not the ultimate answer to what or who created nature. It's only the answer to those who believe that it is, but not the answer to those who have no problem believing that nature as such is eternal.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's an unreasonable question to ask who created the creator. Who says he was created in the first place! We as humans are limited in our understanding of the whole picture. Humans have this uncanny ability to to fabricate whatever it is they want into things that are unknown. Since there is no answer as to who created the creator other than the biblical view that He always existed.

That's a convenient dodge...

Why is it not just as equally unreasonable to question why the Universe needs a cause? If you can exempt god from your rule, then your rule is bogus.

Watch this:
It's an unreasonable question to ask who created the creator. Who says she was created in the first place?! We as human are limited in our understanding of the whole picture. Humans have this uncanny ability to fabricate whatever it is they want into things that are unknown. There is no answer as to who created the creator other than the classical view that she always existed. I am speaking, of course, about our mother goddess, Nana Buluku.

Does your exact same argument for Yahweh work when I make it for Nana Buluku? If it does not, then you have a serious problem. If it does, then you have a serious problem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_Buluku

But I digress...

Beneficial mutations (or neutral) are the only ones that are going to be kept in populations over long periods of time. What survives is what ends up being passed on - anything that hinders survival is going to be less prominent in future generations. So, only the good stuff gets kept. Bad stuff is weeded out. It's simple. (as a ridiculous example, one-legged humans aren't going to outrun many predators. They would get picked off first, leaving only the two-legged humans to mature into adulthood and produce offspring. The one-legged human "mutation", and perhaps the clunky three-legged human, would not make it very far in the legged human timeline, leaving only the more successful two-legged human.)

 

[kaoticprofit]

It's the same question as to ask if nature was created in the first place! The question "who created nature" is based on assumption that nature has to be created. There's no evidence that it needs to.


The Bible is the works of humans. It's not the ultimate answer to what or who created nature. It's only the answer to those who believe that it is, but not the answer to those who have no problem believing that nature as such is eternal.

Kind of like my burrito that ended up on my plate without human intervention.,,,RIGHT? How else would humans know they were created by a creator if the creator didn't interact with God and document it?

How do you expect God to reveal himself other than through what he's made...namely humans? If I create an anthill and two ants where these ants were designed to populate the hill and not die, and were told the colony would die if they ate something forbidden by me, what's the best way for me to interact with my creation? Answer? By becoming an ant!

 

[kaoticprofit]

That's a convenient dodge...

Why is it not just as equally unreasonable to question why the Universe needs a cause? If you can exempt god from your rule, then your rule is bogus.

Watch this:
It's an unreasonable question to ask who created the creator. Who says she was created in the first place?! We as human are limited in our understanding of the whole picture. Humans have this uncanny ability to fabricate whatever it is they want into things that are unknown. There is no answer as to who created the creator other than the classical view that she always existed. I am speaking, of course, about our mother goddess, Nana Buluku.

Does your exact same argument for Yahweh work when I make it for Nana Buluku? If it does not, then you have a serious problem. If it does, then you have a serious problem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_Buluku

But I digress...

Beneficial mutations (or neutral) are the only ones that are going to be kept in populations over long periods of time. What survives is what ends up being passed on - anything that hinders survival is going to be less prominent in future generations. So, only the good stuff gets kept. Bad stuff is weeded out. It's simple. (as a ridiculous example, one-legged humans aren't going to outrun many predators. They would get picked off first, leaving only the two-legged humans to mature into adulthood and produce offspring. The one-legged human "mutation", and perhaps the clunky three-legged human, would not make it very far in the legged human timeline, leaving only the more successful two-legged human.)

My burrito needed a cause. I was hungry and a mind had to make it. You think I have a serious problem? Your Nana god sounds like she didn't know she was created in the minds of people just all the other false gods.

The God of the bible made the universe so that man could play in it!

 

[jonathan180iq]

My burrito needed a cause. I was hungry and a mind had to make it. You think I have a serious problem? Your Nana god sounds like she didn't know she was created in the minds of people just all the other false gods.

The God of the bible made the universe so that man could play in it!

Please explain the difference between your god and Nana Buluku.
How do you know that yours is real and that mine is a false god?
What metric do you use to determine which is which?

 

[columbus]

The God of the bible made the universe so that man could play in it!

Who created your unsupported assertion?
You did. That's who. Because we weak and ignorant humans evolved a tendency to do that.

Who designed river rocks to tend towards smoothly rounded shapes? Nobody did. It's an emergent property of chunks of star matter acted upon by water over eons of time.
Your burrito is as well. Just more complex.
Tom

 

[kaoticprofit]

Please explain the difference between your god and Nana Buluku.
How do you know that yours is real and that mine is a false god?
What metric do you use to determine which is which?

It's useless for me to get into these kind of discussions because I know where they go.....NOWHERE!

My God did just what I did with my anthill. After creating it, and after creating the first two humanoids, He told them He created them in His own image, warned them about the result of bad behavior, and became a man ON EARTH to fix the problem. My God, and like it or not he's also YOUR God, existed before all other false gods. Your God created nothing other than the perception that he or she is a god.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Who created your unsupported assertion?
You did. That's who. Because we weak and ignorant humans evolved a tendency to do that.

Who designed river rocks to tend towards smoothly rounded shapes? Nobody did. It's an emergent property of chunks of star matter acted upon by water over eons of time.
Your burrito is as well. Just more complex.
Tom

God created the leviathan so that it could play in the sea. God created the universe and billions of other planet earths with people on them so that man could play in it. God is still in the planet making business creating humans, more Adam and eves, some of which MAY NOT HAVE FALLEN. For some reason, He doesn't seem to be such a bad dude since living forever in a garden with a bunch of naked women seems better that what I'm experiencing now....but we messed it up!

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's useless for me to get into these kind of discussions because I know where they go.....NOWHERE!

Avoidance - the most common dodge.

You say it's useless because you know you can't answer the question with a reasonable response while keeping your current belief system intact. Noted.

My God did just what I did with my anthill. After creating it, and after creating the first two humanoids, He told them He created them in His own image, warned them about the result of bad behavior, and became a man ON EARTH to fix the problem. My God, and like it or not he's also YOUR God, existed before all other false gods. Your God created nothing other than the perception that he or she is a god.

All unsubstantiated claims.

You've been backed into a corner that you cannot honestly work your way out of at the moment. Hopefully, at some point in the future when your faith is stronger, you can address the first question that I posed to you and begin to have intellectually honest conversations about yourself, your faith, and your god.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Avoidance - the most common dodge.

Not so. I just know better to than to waste my time discussing something with people I know will never change their mind. It's called logical wisdom. I typically don't get into these type of discussions. But now that I've recently retired, I have time to participate in things that I typically don't care to participate in. It's easier to take a sliver out of the back side of a wildcat than it is to change the mind of most humans.

Pounding my way out of the corner you never put me in is about as easy as pounding myself out of a wet paper bag. It's also typical for people like yourself to build themselves up by posting negative comments.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not so. I just know better to than to waste my time discussing something with people I know will never change their mind. It's called logical wisdom. I typically don't get into these type of discussions. But now that I've recently retired, I have time to participate in things that I typically don't care to participate in. It's easier to take a sliver out of the back side of a wildcat than it is to change the mind of most humans.

Pounding my way out of the corner you never put me in is about as easy as pounding myself out of a wet paper bag. It's also typical for people like yourself to build themselves up by posting negative comments.

It's not a negative comment. You factually cannot argue for why your deity of choice is any more legitimate than my deity of choice without citing your deep personal conviction and faith. You believe that one is real and the other is not. That's all you have to support your position.

In any other setting, that argument simply wouldn't be good enough. You are convinced of your position because you believe it deeply. That's wonderful. It does not, however, make you any more correct than someone who deeply believes that Nana Bukulu is the creator of life on Earth. Neither of those positions has anything other than faith to support them. Nothing. At all.

In a modern rational debate setting, both of those arguments fail miserably.

I posit that you recognize this, and that's why you avoid the challenge.

That is fine. There's nothing wrong with it. You're still a good person. It just shows the weakness of your position and might, after some contemplation, give you a reason to rethink some of your conclusions and positions on certain topics.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My burrito needed a cause. I was hungry and a mind had to make it. You think I have a serious problem? Your Nana god sounds like she didn't know she was created in the minds of people just all the other false gods.

The God of the bible made the universe so that man could play in it!

The "cause" of a burrito is that people were hungry, and someone decided to make something to eat.

It evolved of course; it didn't start out as a burrito. At first, people ate the tortillas, beans, beef, cheese, etc., separately. Then, someone decided to bend the tortilla over and put the meat inside...and voila! the Taco was created. Then, someone realized that if you can put meat in a folded tortilla, you can put the rest of the ingredients together, too! Finally, someone realized that with a big enough tortilla, one could wrap all the ingredients together, so they won't drop out the back end, as they tend to do with more basic, less "designed" taco...

In the end, the example of a burrito has nothing to do with biological evolution, because a burrito is manufactured through the activity of humans, and we can observe it happening and do it ourselves. Your hypothetical burrito-without-a-visible-maker is just a bunch of hot air.